Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/13] KVM: s390: implement mediated device open
 callback
To:     Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>, pmorel@linux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     freude@de.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
        cohuck@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
        bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        alifm@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com,
        pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@redhat.com,
        fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@de.ibm.com,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1525705912-12815-1-git-send-email-akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <98ea7ce2-2539-e2ff-4bb4-297e784d87bd@linux.ibm.com>
 <7bb480ac-5723-83ff-c797-53c1ab0458c1@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <93cd0f46-a410-51c8-00b9-810c1b3d3ae2@linux.ibm.com>
 <0f37dc39-7355-19e5-40c9-a02a1ea58c2d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <736a1346-f81a-7f71-7d13-38729ff78e4f@linux.ibm.com>
 <8f68183d-8385-8025-1898-23cad604ae94@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <9e30c9b0-a04c-0c4e-9d3d-37e7a53a7f72@linux.ibm.com>
 <d6455b0b-804f-b58e-41bc-83731979911a@linux.ibm.com>
 <f74f2d2d-36d3-7910-5511-3691a483b89f@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <ea5c2c2f-27fe-b2bf-2aa8-fbe80e77ce81@linux.ibm.com>
 <5f9c3f97-34e2-bf68-b8ca-ac9288ea5efa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <b7215f0e-6ceb-2738-4584-1af7c30bd595@linux.ibm.com>
 <f1cc0d71-d2ff-6461-c450-07cc73a2973c@linux.ibm.com>
 <010679ed-bd80-42f8-3f6f-e4dee10e82f5@linux.ibm.com>
 <a5a72aad-303b-8bc9-f48b-e44aba2af27e@linux.ibm.com>
 <dd81f313-a8c2-bf2a-da4c-4669db170401@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:26:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dd81f313-a8c2-bf2a-da4c-4669db170401@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <b6602378-a860-d685-4513-20629524f5c2@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/11/2018 07:49 AM, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 11.06.2018 13:32, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>> On 06/11/2018 11:23 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2018 23:59, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 01:15 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Why maintain a list of kvm_ap_matrix structures if we don't have to; it is stored
>>>>>>>> with the mediated matrix device which is passed in to all of the vfio_ap driver
>>>>>>>> callbacks.
>>>>>>> Because using the vm_list which is a static in kvm makes you stick inside the kvm code.
>>>> I understand your point here, but even if we did maintain a list of kvm_ap_matrix structures,
>>>> we still need the kvm code to configure the guest's CRYCB and eventually ECA.28. There is
>>>> also code in kvm-ap.c that is called from KVM.
>>> The only code from kvm-ap which is called from KVM is temporary code
>>> waiting for Harald to offer the clean interface to AP instructions.
>>>
>>>> The idea behind kvm-ap.c is that all code
>>>> related to configuration of AP structures in KVM is in this one spot.
>>> This I understand, but the code can be in one spot inside VFIO_AP instead
>>> of inside KVM.
>>> Putting the code inside KVM induce dependencies between KVM and AP
>>> while the kvm/vfio interface allows to avoid this dependency.
>>>
>>> The purpose of VFIO_AP is to handle the CRYCB, all get/clear/set crycb masks
>>> functions should be in VFIO AP.
>>>
>>> If we use wrappers in KVM, since the CRYCB is an a SIE extension,
>>> it is legitimate, the KVM interface to the CRYCB should only
>>> handle bitmaps and be unaware of the vfio_ap internal structures.
> Yes, please!
>
>>> Another concern, the kvm_ap_validate_queue_sharing() should not be
>>> inside KVM because it is a decision of current VFIO_AP driver
>>> to not share the queues between guest of level 2.
>>>
>>> The Z architecture does not allow to share AP queues between
>>> guests of level 1 but we could re-engineer the AP bus and the '
>>> VFIO AP to offer queue sharing for guest level 2.
>>>
>>> This would be a new VFIO_AP driver (and an AP bus extension).
>>> We should not have to change KVM for this.
>>>
>>
>> Pierre's proposal makes a lot of sense to me. We would not need to take
>> the kvm_lock (which we need to traverse the vm_list safely) for the
>> validation, and we could have immediate validation (which is in my opinion
>> better).
> Please do not use the kvm_lock if possible.
>
>> Also your refcount (which is not a refcout) could go away. You simply
>> traverse your list and check for duplicates when hooking up the mdev
>> with KVM.
>>
>> And my opinion is if we don't have to add code to the kvm module we
>> better not.
>>
>> @Janosch: Does core KVM share my opinion?
> At least I do.
>
> KVM does not care about who has which crypto queue/card.
> I'd like to have a driver that does internal bookkeeping and then
> registers the crycb with KVM, so the VM can use it.

I am not sure what you mean by "registers the crycb with KVM".
Can you provide more detail?

>
>> Regards,
>> Halil
>>
>